stipulated amount. wait a minute this is the vote total can't be correct and i also did not vote on that item you need to look at the vote totals again. so we may need to read this anti. can we clarify that before the at the end of this meeting. in the existing litigation meeting vs. the unified school district san francisco supreme court the board of education approved by the a vote of 5 yeses and settlement prudent to the district will resend a educational benefit allow the employee to retroactively resign

and pay the employee the sum of 5 hundreds as a petition for a writ of men and women democrat and all possible claims against the district will be dropped. in arbitration matters and case and u.s. grievance number case no. ar b12 dash 2 r-7 the board of education approvals a supplement prudent to which the district will make 62 bargaining unit members. cumulative totally $500 plus in exchange for a dismissal claims

relatively to the 2012 low implementation. do we have the vote on the last item >> 4 i's one a bit estimation. >> so in the matter of g l vs. the san francisco unified school district case no. 20168 percent 2 the board of education gives the authority of the district to pay up to the stipulated amount. in the united education matters pe rb case the board of education approved by the vote a supplemental prudent to which the district will pay 3 hours of

extended hours pay to special education teachers in certain specified clarifications. less applicable taxes and withholding for the pending charge and realize of all possibly claims or implementation of the special information system. item u other informational items there are no staff reports and we're now at - >> i want to make one announcement we have a shorter one that i want to annuities to everyone listening. >> nicely done. a with that, i'm going to adjourn the meeting interest thank you

> >>. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ hi, i'm with sfgovtv i'm here to discuss prop a that will be before the voters in tuesday >> the health care truth fund was for health care correspondents that would substantially there. the 5 member board passed the fund they mate not use the fund to pay for the costs until january 20, 0200. preparing will allow the bodies to make payments from the fund only as the cities account balances to fully funded it has to be large enough to pay for the costs as they're due and

thus, the cities total payroll costs can't go over 10 percent. they must allow the payment and they're limited to no more than 10 percent of the cities account or the governor and the trust board passed it. they would allow only if the agrees fund account or two-thirds of the agencies funding board and the trust board productive. a yes vote means you want to change the charter from the health care trust funneled only under specified circumstances a no vote i don't want to make those changes. i'm here with supervisor marking

feral and he proponent of preparing >> thanks. having me. i'd like to start with supervisor farrell why do you believe this prop a is important >> i started working on this when our city controller said we have a 4.4 blindfolds liability. number one we have retirees who worked long and a hard tossed the city of san francisco and workers that are feasor full. that's something we want to avoid and fight against we want to make sure that our seniors have their health care that were second of all the costs for our city a hundreds of thousands of dollars. this year as chairman of our committee b it will grow to

$500 million a year over the next 20 years were so preparing prop a does make sure that our cities retirees and their health care is priority for in the further. in thirty years our 4 half a billion dollars liability will be wiped-out off the books and we'll save a lot of money from 5 hundred memorial day's a year down and those hundreds of dollars of million dollars dollars will go toward neighborhood things. and to make sure we put ourselves on a course everyone is sporting and i'm proud to be part of. mr. murphy would you recycle to speak to the opposition >> yes. thanks supervisor so far could not it's quite impressive our here to discuss that human resources as the supervisor points out the city

has a whole in the retirees health care budget about the half the size of the last budget. now prop a the city sets aside money and that's not a bad thing. the idea that we can just promise things to retirees and not pay for it is obviously not a responsible concept and not something i would endorse, however, prop a is on the hard choices that are associated with paipg for a 4 mrs. billion dollars health care be liability. you have to pull that money from somewhere and prop a puts the city on the hook for paying for that obligation that's usually by putting >> funding requirement in the

charter but it didn't tell you where that money comes from there has to be taxes in the in the meantime to come up with that money. so the question i would then prop is that prop a leafs unanswered is that where is the money going to come from and we shouldn't put ourselves on the hook >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you. the money isn't coming out of thin air but prop b this mauntdz that the city employees contribute 2 percent of their pay. and the city for 2008 matches that with one percent so new employees from as of 2009 two percent of their health care is

being saved it's not coming from taxpayers in san francisco it's from city applies from the city and county of san francisco >> mr. murphy. >> sure so one of the troubling points of prop a there's a catch all in the amendment that the contributions of the employee and accident planned contribution by the city are insufficient to meet the requirements of the truth you fund the city is on the hook for the balance. which means in practical terms we have to cut from somewhere else or raise taxes. and the picture of retiree health care where we can fund health care on 3 percent of people's annual salaries is a little bit rosy. it's not something we can really

bet on with health care costs and benefit costs rising at the, you know, 3 and 44 percent. salaries rising at 3 and 4 percent rather. its far greater than the pace of inflation and greater than the contributions >> so we have a little bit of time level overview left are supervisor farrell when i started working on prop a it was important in san francisco. i made sure we assaulted with our labor and all communities. i'm proud to say we have the support of every member of the board of supervisors and the democratic party here in san francisco and the republican party in san francisco. swms the harvey milk club and every single every elected

official in is no. this is building on prop c we passed in 2011 and if we can pass prop b we'll pass at the ballot and something we should be product u proud of >> thank you, mr. murphy. >> there are promises and there are commitments. one of the pieces of language on the ballot is about candle lights and the our promises for the roasts health care. setting aside in law that the money will be there is a promise. until we condominium the enemy of money to make those commitments work is still a promise. the commitment comes when i put the effort on the table to make health care sewer secure.

the promise is nice but we have to figure out how to deliver and the funds that are available so far from the measure that the supervisor vitals i cites are again, a nice probable but that's not realty. when we passed prop a we should know where the resources come from >> we hope this information has been information active. please visit the san francisco sf elections.org. remember the voting t is available in city hall be sure to vo november 5th. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ hi, i'm marconi i'm here to discuss prop b the measure will be before the voters on test november 5th. they have a proposed site called - prop c is an referendum. a referendum is the process by which the voters can proof or reject legislation. a 3 point plus acres is on washington street. on 2012 the board of supervisors approved the construction of two mixed used buildings containing 3 hundred residential units and a properly operated fitness space and under parking.

in approving the project they adopted the ordinance to there the height limits. the referendum be submitted to the voters for approval or recreation. it will not take effect unless it's pass see if you vote yes. you want the ordinance passes which influences the height along drum street if you vote no. you don't want the owns which increases the heights to take effect. prop b which also concerns the washington site qualified after prop c it would create woodworking parks and housing district. the sdrishtd would include two buildings with a total of 1 hundred 21 to nine hundred 41

units and there the building from 84 feet up to 1 hundred and 36 feet. a privately owned a height of 6 stories along embarcadero and payment for the housing fund a public park and open spaces and sidewalks on at least 20 percent of the site and new case to the waterfront and ground floor retail and cafes and under gown car and bicycle parking and increased revenue to the port and city. if you vote yes open prop b you want to approve the 8 development site if you vicinity no on prop b i don't want to approve the washington street development project. i'm here with alec the proponent

of propose b and c ambassador we're also joined by on opponent of the measure >> i'd like to a start with mr. barb why are you for this as opposed to. >> i'm for the proposition because i cared about the san francisco project & using the waterfront i see this as an opportunity to open up the waterfront by opening up streets that were closed in the dark redevelopment stage when the freeway was here blocked by fence and further made ugly by a parking lot. we need in this 3 blocks open vitality spates housing over

retail shops and cafes and restaurants we need to turn those into something that's a benefit for people walking along and enjoying the embarcadero >> why are you against it. >> we're using a no vote on prop b and c. number one it changes the height all along this particle of the waterfront to almost double the size the freeway that was torn down. it also is bulky as a favorable field so instead of opening up the waterfront as argue walking along the waterfront a lot of your views of acquit r coit tower will be restricted. number 3 it increases the heights along the waterfront because there's 3 other particles along the north

waterfront. f it destroys the tense club it's been use that i thousands of san franciscans for years and it's being built too close to a sewer line with great risks to the sewer line. height, bulk, sewer risk, precedent. and then to on top of it in prop b which is written by the developer the developer he gets special rules to approve his project. if this isn't enough to vote no on b and c i think it is >> mr. barb there's been some confusion regarding prop b and c why walls prop b was added later. >> proposition c only asked for the approval the height.

we thought it was critical that the voter be able to see what the whole project was with all the benefits. as to the height only a small frooshg of the height 85 percent is much lower than those allotted on the waterfront. if you look at the model you'll see the project is very modest in its heights which are the buildings around it are larger. this is the same project that did board of supervisors approved is to have a special clearance to assure whatever planning views is the same as what the voters are approved that's why we're urging yes o.j. on b and c

>> i think number one if the developer addressed the sole question of whether or not people want to there the height limits almost twice the size of the freeway thirty thousand citizens put other than the ballot that's the only question. prop b was a way to get around addressing the height limits itself but did they address even in their title the height or the bulk of the building along the waterfront no. instead, they called it access to the embarcadero. even in their attorneys any of their attorneys in their door hangs or tv ads do they mention the building or address the height or address the budget.

no, they tried to address other issues which i'm happy to explain are red herrings. >> thank you, mr. barb. >> everywhere i live i talk about the buildings and height. the idea is to put the whole project out there it's the other side who wants to hide the fact if you look at the models there's some real stunt to enjoy the waterfront and talking about red herrings. what louis mentioned about the sewer that's a redundant sewer system that the city a having and the project sponsor is helping with an easement. thargz to work closely that the puc engineers of the city and by

unanimous vote going forward with the plans. talking about red herrings and misleading campaigns remember where's the beef where's the wall on the waft that the adverse talk about. it's half the height of the 6 floor believe on the waterfront but it should be looking much higher. that's been sliding in their campaign literature and they ignore the benefits on the waterfront >> well, we've only used the builders plan. if you look at the litter pit

forward by the prop b folks it doesn't show the height and if you're going to stand in sue bear man park it's a wall. and as i say this sets the precedent for on down the northern freeway. frankly, i think this is a fight for the future of the northern waterfront were and as to the sewer i don't make up that there was an engineering report that was buried in city hall until two days after all the environmental review processes came out and only because a whistle blower came forward arrest i think this year serious planning issues and to the model. it's interesting after the high buildings that were built

citizens back several years ago were in an uproar. as you look along the waterfront. you say the fontana towers that was a wake up call. we've got to protect our northern waterfront and i think a no vote on b and c is slightly critical as a wake up call to all of san francisco hey, we want to protect our northern waterfront. that's where the syria club and coalition of neighbors the democratic party, affordable housing folks are all in support of a no vote on proposition b and c >> mr. barb any thoughts and a year and a half there's a lot of support for proposition b and c from spur and labor and planning and several other democratic clubs.

there are a huge number of people who are not afraid of the scare tactics that are being used to try to compare this with the fontana towers it's on the image of downtown. the reason the planning department that suggested having higher heights is because the proximity felt buildings near by. all the properties have height limits the city plans call fooz 40 feet and the idea this is going to set any precedent is a scar tactic and i'm surprised others are fall for that. you see what you get and you see the benefits to the people of san francisco >> we're talking about a one hundred and thirty luxury condos

that on the waterfront. there's a lot of money involved here and only a few people that are able to live in those condos so this is bizarre and it does set a precedent. that's why too we'll e we're going to bring parks. guess what, there's an open space at the corner like the sized of a tennis courts. this initiative is about housing not affordable housing yes by law their required to put in $11 million elsewhere but it's not about housing it's rich people's housing and number 3 they're just moving this over

and straightening it out. our argument is actually this is not opening up the waterfront. certainly for the public it's restricting the waterfront >> thank you both very much for your time. do you have any final thoughts >> yeah. it makes an lifting million dollars benefit to the fund it's equivalent to 40 thousand units this is a real tount opportunity for the city. and the park spaces that are being added thirty thousand secreting square feet it's 3 times the size of the downtown area. this fight is really about the future of the northern waterfront. do we want to have a northern waterfront that that is open and

available important people. the answer we think is yes, but vote no on b and c if you really want to protect the northern waterfront please vote no on b and c otherwise we're going to have high riser that are in the spirit of san francisco >> thank you both unfortunately we're out of time. we hope this discussion was inform stiff for more information please san francisco protect without any doubt sf.org 1928 remember early voting is viable ♪ hi, i'm naomi ma